This article responds to the argument that judicial review of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is illegitimate because it is undemocratic. The authors show that Charter cases nearly always can be, and often are, followed by new legislation that still accomplishes the same objectives as the legislation that was struck down. The effect of the Charter is rarely to block a legislative objective, but rather to influence the design of implementing legislation. Charter cases cause a public debate in which Charter-protected rights have a more prominent role than they would have if there had been no judicial decision. The process is best regarded as a dialogue between courts and legislatures
